Intrigue on the High Court

Despite all the media hoopla over the recent Supreme Court ruling on Arizona’s immigration law, most people on both sides of the issue have missed the bigger picture, and it all points back to politics as usual.

The fact is that all eight of the nine high court justices who voted on the matter ruled in favor of upholding the key and most controversial provision: Arizona cops have the power to check the legal status of individuals they have arrested and suspect may be in America illegally.

That is a victory for states’ rights, though many are saying it is only a symbolic one with the existing Obama mandate instructing the Department of Homeland Security to order police to release any illegal aliens in custody unless they have arrest warrants or are wanted on felonies.

All of the Republican appointees on the court—all of whom are Roman Catholic conservatives—joined all of the Democratic appointees—two of whom are Jewish liberals and one of whom is Hispanic and thus a member of a special interest group that is generally adamantly opposed to the law—in supporting the law.

Despite claims of “victory” coming from even both sides on the issue, serious analysis of the court ruling finds that the matter remains unresolved.

Like any good sheriff, Arizona’s Joe Arpaio seemed unfazed by the Obama administration’s catch-and-release policy announcement: “We haven’t arrested anyone today, but it’ll be interesting when we arrest someone” and the federal government refuses to take custody.

The second major ruling that came down from the court featured the Republican majority upholding the now-infamous Citizens United ruling critics called one of the most outrageous high court decisions ever. The high court voted to permit mass infusions of often-anonymous campaign donations from corporations and mega-rich plutocrats into the American election arena.

The “Obamacare” ruling was the court shocker. Republican Chief Justice John Roberts joined the leftist Obama team in keeping it in place.

The reality is that the political operators on the court, pretending to be “above politics,” only accept cases that are easily manipulated through legal rhetorical legerdemain. The bottom line is that these decisions prove it was really all “politics as usual” coming from the Supreme Court.

JOHN TIFFANY is the assistant editor for THE BARNES REVIEW, the world’s leading journal of history and nationalist thought, and has been writing professionally for about 30 years. You can email Mr. Tiffany at tbreditor@gmail.com